Naturalistic Atheism: Religious Worship At The Feet Of An Apostate Preacher

Atheism is a religious faith.

Unlike Christianity, atheism doesn’t have the luxury of God’s special revelation to unbelievers and so it’s down to its devoted proponents to force it upon others, any which way. 

Intimidation works well enough at the heights of the academy but the masses are largely ignorant and uninterested in a detailed study of not only biology, but also geology, history, physics, mathematics, language, and human nature itself: things that when explored sincerely totally undermine naturalism, Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution, and the atheistic religious hope and belief that somehow humanity will do whatever we please and get away with it. 

Naturally, the masses will buy something if the sales technique is convincing. It also doesn’t hurt that Darwinian evolution ensures subjective morality at best, permitting you to do whatever you please without accountability, bar to the state and your own seared conscience. 

Consider Don Boys great article below – sure, it’s preaching to the choir but when today’s Big Brother is pressing down with the 2+2=5 routine, it doesn’t hurt to be reminded that actually, it doesn’t.

Evidently the three college professors who wrote to the Chattanooga newspaper were not well-read in the current literature. They seem to be where they were during their college days but those days are long gone. Let me provide some up-to-date information that will help honest and inquiring minds make a judgment on the controversy of origins.

Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position.

In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is science while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.

Science means to know and systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc. It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don’t “know” anything about man’s origins. They guess, suppose, speculate, etc., but they don’t know. Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted, and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rush to defend Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.

World famous scientist G. G. Simpson stated, “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything…or at the very best, they are not science.” Neither creationism nor evolution can be observed or tested.

Need I remind my readers of the many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel’s recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.

Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it supports evolution. It does not.

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma, said, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them….” And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no “fossil traces” of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!

Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, “…geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” Dr. Eldredge further said, “…no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.”

World famous paleontologist Colin Patterson agreed saying, “there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Not one.

All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart! Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been discarded and is considered a phantom and illusion because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can’t be counted on being a horse then of course we’ve got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.

Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig’s tooth, not an ape man! And in recent years we have discovered that Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired “ape man.” Need I go on? The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact as compared to gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as some evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.

Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden, wrote, “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary…thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.” He went on to say, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” He also said, “Evolution is ‘anti-science.’” 

And so it is.

Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized Darwinism as speculation, based on faith, similar to theories of little green men, dead, effectively dead, very flimsy, incoherent, and a myth. Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don’t need scientific creationists to hold their feet to the fire. Nevertheless, our public school textbooks and teachers, even up to most colleges and some universities, are not up to date on current thought. Did you get that–current “thought”?

I have assumed that the three college professors are familiar with all the world famous scientists I quoted above. All of them! If not, they are really uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation discussion until they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.

So you see evolutionists are dishonest or uninformed when they suggest that creationists are backwoods, snake handling fanatics. In fact, over a thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution.

Those college professors were correct in stating that Darwin’s book does not deal with the origins of life even though its title was Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. So a book about origins does not deal with the beginning of life!

Later Darwin suggested that life began in a warm little pond, but he never suggested where the pond came from! Most evolutionists teach that life started there also, but scientists have proved conclusively that spontaneous generation is impossible. So where did the first spark of life come from? You think maybe God was involved?

And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the nonexistent ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin, and others preached white superiority – because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all, evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what’s a few million lives to be concerned about?

I don’t have the space to deal with numerous problems that evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.

Evolution is a guess, a speculation, a hypothesis, a theory, and a faith. Yes, evolution is a religion as I document in my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith? And, since it is a faith, it should not be taught in public schools. At least, any thinking, honest person would agree that if it is, then scientific creationism should be taught along with it. After all, we do believe in balance and fairness, don’t we? Or do we?

Sorry, professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is taught as well.

http://barbwire.com/2016/04/08/evolution-not-fact-fraud-faith/

Naturalistic Evolution And Humanism: The Bloodiest Religion

Blood sacrifice is a part of most religions in some form or another because it seeks to emulate true religion that comes from God. 

It’s actually one of the easy ways to identify a false religion and the kill count of abortion stands as the biggest and longest ongoing blood sacrifice to Satan in history.

Christians are often confronted with the claim that a humanistic worldview will help society become better. Even the first Humanist Manifesto, of which belief in evolution is a subset, declared, “The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently co-operate for the common good.” But can such a statement be true?
For starters, what do the authors mean by “good”? They have no legitimate foundation for such a concept, since one person’s “good” can be another’s “evil.” To have some objective standard, they must borrow from the teachings of God in the Bible.

Beyond that, does evolution really teach a future of prosperity? What has been the result of evolutionary thinking in the past hundred years? Perhaps this could be a test of what is to come. Let’s first look at the casualties stemming from leaders with evolutionary worldviews, beginning in the 1900s, to see the hints of what this “next level” looks like:

Who/What? Specific Event and Estimated Dead

Pre-Hitler Germany/Hitler and the Nazis 

WWI: 20,000,000 dead, 21,000,000 wounded1

WWII: 72,000,0002

Holocaust: 17,000,000? (estimates range from 7 to 26 million)3
Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin Bolshevik revolution and Russian Civil War: 15,000,0004

Joseph Stalin 20,000,0005

Mao Zedong 14,000,000–20,000,0006

Pol Pot (Saloth Sar) 750,000–1,700,0007
Abortion* 

China estimates 1971–2006: 300,000,0008

Russia estimates 1954–1991: 280,000,0009

US estimates 1973–2014: 57,496,01110

France estimates 1936–2006: 5,749,73111

UK estimates 1958–2006: 6,090,73812

Germany estimates 1968–2007: 3,699,62413

Charles Darwin’s view of evolution was catapulted into societies around the world in the mid- to late 1800s. Evolutionary teachings influenced Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, and many others. Let’s take a closer look at some of these people and events and examine the evolutionary influence and repercussions.

World War I and II, Hitler, Nazis, and the Holocaust

Most historians would point to the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand on June 18, 1914, as the event that triggered World War I (WWI). But tensions were already high considering the state of Europe at the time. Darwinian sentiment was brewing in Germany. Darwin once said:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [Aborigine] and the gorilla.14

Darwin viewed the “Caucasian” (white-skinned Europeans) as the dominant “race” in an evolutionary worldview. To many evolutionists at the time, mankind had evolved from ape-like creatures that had more hair, dark skin, dark eyes, etc. Therefore, more “evolved” meant less body hair, blond hair, blue eyes, etc. Later in Hitler’s era, Nazi Germany practiced Lebensborn, which was a controversial program, the details of which have not been entirely brought to light. Many claim it was a breeding program that tried to evolve the “master race” further—more on this below.

But the German sentiment prior to WWI was very much bent on conquering for the purpose of expanding their territory and their “race.” An encyclopedia entry from 1936 states:

In discussions of the background of the war much has been said of Pan-Germanism, which was the spirit of national consciousness carried to the extreme limit. The Pan-Germans, who included not only militarists, but historians, scientists, educators and statesmen, conceived the German people, no matter where they located, as permanently retaining their nationality. The most ambitious of this group believed that it was their mission of Germans to extend their kultur (culture) over the world, and to accomplish this by conquest if necessary. In this connection the theory was advanced that the German was a superior being, destined to dominate other peoples, most of whom were thought of as decadent.15

Germany had been buying into an extreme view of Darwin’s model of evolution and saw themselves as the superior “race,” destined to dominate the world. This view set the stage for Hitler and the Nazi party and paved the road to WWII.

Hitler

World War II dwarfed World War I in the total number of people who died. Racist attitudes exploded in Germany against people groups such as Jews, Poles, and many others. Adolf Hitler was heavily influenced by Darwin’s teaching on evolution.

Hitler even tried to force the Protestant church in Germany to change fundamental tenants because of his newfound faith.16 In 1936, while Hitler was in power, an encyclopedia entry on Hitler stated:

. . . a Hitler attempt to modify the Protestant faith failed.17

His actions strongly suggest that he did not hold to the basic fundamentals taught in the 66 books of the Bible. Though some of his writings suggest he did believe in some form of God early on, his religious views moved toward humanism after his acceptance of evolution. This refutes notions that Hitler was a Protestant Christian as some have claimed. Consider this quote in his unpublished second book:

The types of creatures on the earth are countless, and on an individual level their self-preservation instinct as well as the longing for procreation is always unlimited; however, the space in which this entire life process plays itself out is limited. It is the surface area of a precisely measured sphere on which billions and billions of individual beings struggle for life and succession. In the limitation of this living space lies the compulsion for the struggle for survival, and the struggle for survival, in turn contains the precondition for evolution.18

Hitler continues:

The history of the world in the ages when humans did not yet exist was initially a representation of geological occurrences. The clash of natural forces with each other, the formation of a habitable surface on this planet, the separation of water and land, the formation of the mountains, plains, and the seas. That [was] is the history of the world during this time. Later, with the emergence of organic life, human interest focuses on the appearance and disappearance of its thousandfold forms. Man himself finally becomes visible very late, and from that point on he begins to understand the term “world history” as referring to the history of his own development—in other words, the representation of his own evolution. This development is characterized by the never-ending battle of humans against animals and also against humans themselves.19

Hitler fully believed Darwin as well as Darwin’s precursors—such as Charles Lyell’s geological ages and millions of years of history. In his statements here, there is no reference to God. Instead, he unreservedly flew the banner of naturalism and evolution. His evolutionary views certainly helped lead him and the Nazi party into WWII because they viewed the “Caucasian” as more evolved, which to them justified their adoption of the idea that lesser “races” would be eliminated in the struggle for survival. Among the first to be targeted were Jews, then Poles, and then many others.

Trotsky, Lenin

Trotsky and Lenin were both notorious leaders of the USSR—and specifically the Russian revolution. Lenin, taking power in 1917, became a ruthless leader and selected Trotsky as his heir. Lenin and Trotsky held to Marxism, which was built on Darwinism and evolution. Karl Marx regarded Darwin’s book as an “epoch making book.” With regards to Darwin’s research on natural origins, Marx claimed, “The latter method is the only materialistic and, therefore, the only scientific one.”20

Few realize or admit that Marxism, the primary idea underlying communism, is built on Darwinism. In 1883, Freidrich Engels, Marx’s longtime friend and collaborator, stated at Marx’s funeral service that “Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history.”21 Both Darwin and Marx built their ideologies on naturalism and materialism.

Trotsky once said of Darwin:

Darwin stood for me like a mighty doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe. I was intoxicated with his minute, precise, conscientious and at the same time powerful, thought. I was the more astonished when I read . . . that he had preserved his belief in God. I absolutely declined to understand how a theory of the origin of species by way of natural selection and sexual selection and a belief in God could find room in one and the same head.22

Trotsky’s high regard for evolution and Darwin were the foundation of his belief system. Like many, Trotsky probably did not realize that most of the precious few instances of the name “God” did not appear in the first edition of Origin of Species. These references were added later, and many suspect that this was done to influence church members to adopt Darwinism. Regardless, Trotsky may not have read much of Darwin’s second book, Descent of Man, in which Darwin claims that man invented God:

The same high mental faculties which first led man to believe in unseen spiritual agencies, then in fetishism, polytheism, and ultimately in monotheism, would infallibly lead him, as long as his reasoning powers remained poorly developed, to various strange superstitions and customs.23

Vladimir Lenin picked up on Darwinism and Marxism and ruled very harshly as an evolutionist. His variants of Marxism have become known as Leninism (see The Development of Capitalism in Russia). Regardless, the evolutionist roots of Marx, Trotsky, and Lenin were the foundation that Communism has stood on—and continues to stand on.

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, to name a few

Perhaps the most ruthless communist leaders were Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Each of these were social Darwinists, ruling three different countries—the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia respectively. Their reigns of terror demonstrated the end result of reducing the value of human life to that of mere animals, a Darwinistic teaching.24

Abortion

The war on children has been one of the quietest and yet bloodiest in the past hundred years. In an evolutionary mindset, the unborn have been treated as though they are going through an “animal phase” and can simply be discarded.

Haeckel’s Embryo Drawing

Early evolutionist Ernst Haeckel first popularized the concept that babies in the womb are actually undergoing animal developmental stages, such as a fish stage and so on. This idea has come to be known as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Haeckel even faked drawings of various animals’ embryos and had them next to drawn human embryos looking virtually identical.

These drawings have been shown to be completely false.25 Haeckel himself partially confessed as much.26 However, this discredited idea has been used repeatedly for a hundred years! Textbooks today still use this concept, and museums around the world still teach it.

Through this deception, many women have been convinced that the babies they are carrying in their wombs are simply going through an animal phase and can be aborted. Author Ken Ham states:

In fact, some abortion clinics in America have taken women aside to explain to them that what is being aborted is just an embryo in the fish stage of evolution, and that the embryo must not be thought of as human. These women are being fed outright lies.27

Evolutionary views have decreased the value of human life. Throughout the world the casualties of the war on children is staggering. Though deaths of children and the unborn did exist prior to the “evolution revolution,” they have increased exponentially as a result of Darwinian teachings.

Conclusion

Is evolution the cause of wars and deaths? Absolutely not—both existed long before Darwin was born. Sin is the ultimate cause.28 But an evolutionary worldview has done nothing but add fuel to the fire.

In spite of the wars and atrocities caused by those who subscribed to an evolutionary worldview in recent times, there is still hope. We can end the seemingly endless atrocities against the unborn.

In Egypt, Israelite boys were slaughtered by being thrown into the Nile at the command of Pharaoh (Exodus 1:20). And yet, by the providence of God, Moses survived and led the Israelites to safety, and the Lord later judged the Egyptians.

In Israel under the Roman Empire, Herod the Great commanded the slaughter of all the boys under the age of two in and around Bethlehem. And yet, by the providence of God, Jesus, the Son of God, survived and later laid down His life to bring salvation to mankind as the Prince of Peace. Herod’s name, however, went down in history as an evil tyrant and murderer.

In this day and age, governments readily permit the killing of children, both boys and girls, and sometimes command it (abortion). By providence, however, you survived. While we can’t change the past, we can learn from it. If we are to stop this continuing bloodshed, we must get back to the Bible and realize the bankrupt religion of evolution has led only to death—by the millions.
Footnotes

World War I Casualties, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties, October 23, 2008, as with all of these statistics, they may have some variance depending on source.

World War II Casualties, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties, October 23, 2008.

The Holocaust, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust, October 23, 2008.

Russian Civil War, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War, October 23, 2008.

Joseph Stalin, http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html, October 23, 2008.

Mao Tse-Tung, http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/mao.html, October 23, 2008.

Pol Pot, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot, October 23, 2008.

Historical abortion statistics, PR China, compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston , last updated 4 June 2008, http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-prchina.html.

Historical abortion statistics, U.S.S.R., compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston , last updated 4 June 2008, http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-ussr.html

“Abortion Statistics: United States Data & Trends,” National Right to Life, http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/FS01AbortionintheUS.pdf.

Historical abortion statistics, France, compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston, last updated 4 June 2008, http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-france.html.

Historical abortion statistics, United Kingdom, compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston, last updated 4 June 2008, http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedkingdom.html

Historical abortion statistics, FR Germany, compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston, last updated 4 June 2008, http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-frgermany.html

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (New York: A.L. Burt, 1874, 2nd ed.), p. 178.

The American Educator Encyclopedia, The United Educators, Inc., Chicago, 1936, p. 3914 under entry “World War.”

The American Educator Encyclopedia, The United Educators, Inc., Chicago, 1936, p. 1702 under entry “Hitler.”

The American Educator Encyclopedia, The United Educators, Inc., Chicago, 1936, p. 1494 under entry “Germany.”

Hitler’s Second Book, Adolf Hitler, Edited by Gerald L. Weinberg, 2003 Enigma books, Translated by Krista Smith, p. 8.

Hitler’s Second Book, Adolf Hitler, Edited by Gerald L. Weinberg, 2003 Enigma books, Translated by Krista Smith, p. 9.

Great Books of the Western World, Volume 50, Capital, Karl Marx, William Benton (Publishers), Chicago, 1952, Footnotes on p. 166 and p. 181

Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, London,: Chatto & Windus, 1959, p. 348.

Eastman, Max, Trotsky: A portrait of his youth, New York, pp. 117-118, 1925.

Darwin, Charles, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Chapter III (Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals), 1871, As printed in the Great Books of the Western World, Volume 49, Robert Hutchins, Ed., Chicago, 1952, p. 303.

Raymond Hall, Darwin’s Impact—The Bloodstained Legacy of Evolution.

Michael Richardson et al, Anatomy and Embryology, 196(2):91-106, 1997.

Haeckel said, “ . . . a small portion of my embryo-pictures (possibly 6 or 8 in a hundred) are really (in Dr Brass’s [one of his critics] sense of the word) “falsified”—all those, namely, in which the disclosed material for inspection is so incomplete or insufficient that one is compelled in a restoration of a connected development series to fill up the gaps through hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing members through comparative syntheses. What difficulties this task encounters, and how easily the draughts- man may blunder in it, the embryologist alone can judge.” The Truth about Haeckel’s Confession, The Bible Investigator and Inquirer, M.L. Hutchinson, Melbourne, March 11, 1911, p. 22–24.

Ham, Ken, The Lie: Evolution, Chapter 8 (The Evils of Evolution), Master Books, Green Forest, AK, 1987, p. 105.

The New Answers Book 1, Gen. Ed. Ken Ham, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2006, Chapter 26: Why Does God’s Creation Include Death and Suffering?, pp.325–338.

https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/the-results-of-evolution/

Dangerous Christians Discarding Scripture

This blog is all about signs highlighting troubles in these last days.

Many Christians become uncomfortable when you start telling them truths such as the 1.5 billion death toll of murder by abortion or that Islam is, according to its own sources, a religion of terror.

They seem to think that because God is loving, he won’t allow their entire culture to sink into a quagmire of destruction. History and scripture say otherwise.

One of the ways to solve the inconvenient problem of truth is to either twist it or abandon it entirely, something theology schools often seem intent on doing very effectively as this recent story reveals:

A Wheaton College professor announced on Facebook Thursday night that she will be wearing a hijab (Muslim head scarf) throughout her celebration of the Advent as a way of showing solidarity with Muslims.
Larycia Hawkins, a political science professor at the Wheaton, Illinois, evangelical higher education institution, explained on her Facebook page that she will be wearing a hijab to work, class, and church. She also vows to wear the hijab during her trip to Chicago and even when she goes on an airplane to return to her hometown for Christmas.

“I don’t love my Muslim neighbor because s/he is American. I love my Muslim neighbor because s/he deserves love by virtue of her/his human dignity,” Hawkins wrote. “I stand in human solidarity with my Muslim neighbor because we are formed of the same primordial clay, descendants of the same cradle of humankind — a cave in Sterkfontein, South Africa that I had the privilege to descend into to plumb the depths of our common humanity in 2014.”

Hawkins, who has been on the Wheaton faculty since 2007, further asserted that not only are Muslims her neighbors but they also “worship the same God.”

“I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book. And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God,” Hawkins stated. “But as I tell my students, theoretical solidarity is not solidarity at all. Thus, beginning tonight, my solidarity has become embodied solidarity.”

“As part of my Advent Worship, I will wear the hijab to work at Wheaton College, to play in Chi-town, in the airport and on the airplane to my home state that initiated one of the first anti-Sharia laws (read: unconstitutional and Islamophobic), and at church,” she added.

Hawkins did not respond to requests from The Christian Post for comments by press time.

The Wheaton College professor further explained that she hopes she is not the only non-Muslim woman wearing a hijab this holiday season, as she desires to start a movement of women showing their solidarity for Muslims.

“I invite all women into the narrative that is embodied, hijab-wearing solidarity with our Muslim sisters — for whatever reason. A large scale movement of Women in Solidarity with Hijabs is my Christmas ‪#‎wish‬ this year,” Hawkins continued. “Perhaps you are a Muslim who does not wear the veil normally. Perhaps you are an atheist or agnostic who finds religion silly or inexplicable. Perhaps you are a Catholic or Protestant Christian like me. Perhaps you already cover your head as part of your religious worship, but not a hijab.”

Hawkins turned to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), where she has a friend on staff, for advice on whether it would be offensive to Muslims if a non-Muslim wears a hijab.

“I asked whether a non-Muslim wearing the hijab was haram (forbidden), patronizing, or otherwise offensive to Muslims. I was assured by my friends at CAIR-Chicago that they welcomed the gesture,” she explained. “So please do not fear joining this embodied narrative of actual as opposed to theoretical unity; human solidarity as opposed to mere nationalistic, sentimentality.”

In a generation in desperate need of people to stand up and speak truth, we have “theology” teachers laying down and becoming absolutely useless.

The reality is that Hawkins has far more in common with atheistic humanists, given her trust in unobserved molecules-to-man evolution and her naive support of Islam, a religion that has killed more Christians than even humanism.

Ken Ham makes some important commentary about this growing trend:

As reported in the Christian Post with the headline “Wheaton College Prof. to Wear Hijab During Advent to Show Solidarity With Muslims,” an associate professor at a once-theologically conservative Christian school, Wheaton College, stated the following on her Facebook page:

As part of my Advent Worship, I will wear the hijab to work at Wheaton College, to play in Chi-town, in the airport and on the airplane to my home state that initiated one of the first anti-Sharia laws (read: unconstitutional and Islamophobic), and at church.

She also stated, “I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book. And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God.”

Now, Christians and Muslims certainly do not “worship the same God.” The God of the Bible is not the same as that of the Quran (Koran).

As AiG speaker/writer Bodie Hodge states,

Religious books, such as Islam’s Koran, Mormonism’s Book of Mormon, and Hinduism’s Vedas, contradict the Bible; and so they cannot be Scripture. For example, the Koran in two chapters (Sura 4:171 and 23:91) says God had no son, but the Bible is clear that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (Matthew 26:63–64).

In another article on the AiG website we point out,

Like the Bible, the Quran teaches that people are descendants of Adam and Eve and are imperfect sinners. However, the Quran also teaches that their god, Allah, inspired sin in humankind (Quran 4:88; 7:16–18; 9:51; 14:4; 16:93; 35:8; 57:22; 74:31; 91:7–9). Muslims believe that humans are sinners because Allah has willed it. They have no understanding similar to the Bible’s teaching that humans, not God, caused sin through rebellion against God (Romans 5:12, 5:18–19).

The Quran’s teachings regarding salvation are inconsistent. On the one hand, the Quran teaches that salvation is based on purification by good deeds (Quran 7:6–9). A Muslim can become righteous through prayer, almsgiving, fasting, and living according to the Quran. Yet the Quran also teaches that Allah has predetermined every person’s destiny, and one’s righteous acts may or may not affect Allah’s decision (Quran 57:22). It teaches that everyone, both the righteous and the unrighteous, will be led into hell by Allah, before the righteous will enter heaven (Quran 19:67–72). Therefore no Muslim can know his or her eternal destiny in this life. Even Muhammad himself was unsure of his salvation (Quran 31:34; 46:9).

The Quran actually states that people are descendants of Adam and Eve. Yet this associate professor from Wheaton College denies this, and so exhibits a gross inconsistency. She states the following in giving an evolutionary view of history:

I stand in human solidarity with my Muslim neighbor because we are formed of the same primordial clay, descendants of the same cradle of humankind—a cave in Sterkfontein, South Africa that I had the privilege to descend into to plumb the depths of our common humanity in 2014.

So she actually contradicts the Quran when she uses an evolutionary view of history as part of her reasoning to display a solidarity with Muslims.

Over the years, we’ve been warning the church that so many Christian colleges have been compromising God’s Word in Genesis—and we’ve been warning that such compromise will eventually lead to apostasy. This is exactly what we are seeing in this example from a Wheaton College professor.

In a way, a similar kind of compromise happened in Jeremiah’s day. Jeremiah warned the people and the leader (the king) to believe God’s Word. When God had Jeremiah write down the warnings to the people, we read,

Now the king was sitting in the winter house in the ninth month, with a fire burning on the hearth before him. And it happened, when Jehudi had read three or four columns, that the king cut it with the scribe’s knife and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth. Yet they were not afraid, nor did they tear their garments, the king nor any of his servants who heard all these words. (Jeremiah 36:22–24)

So many Christian college professors have been tearing out God’s Word and, in a sense, “burning” it. They started tearing out the account of the creation in six days, then the account of the Flood, and now the account of the creation of a literal Adam and Eve. They have also been tearing out the Bible’s doctrine of marriage. I submit that they have taken God’s Word and “cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.” “Yet they were not afraid,” just like in Jeremiah’s day. But they should be very afraid:

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:31)

One day these Christian colleges, their professors, presidents, and boards will give an account before the Lord for their actions—which are leading generations astray.

In 2011, we published the book Already Compromised that detailed the research on the state of Christian colleges in this nation and what they believe. That book, along with two others, Already Gone and Ready to Return, are the most definitive works on the state of Christianity in America (reflecting the Western world). The research for each book was conducted by renowned researcher Britt Beemer from America’s Research Group. All three books are now available as a special pack titled Ready for Reformation. I urge you to obtain a set and understand what is happening to the church when it comes to compromise with the Bible, and how it is having a devastating impact on generations.

“Times of trouble” is exactly how you describe Christians going AWOL from the gospel about Jesus Christ and the coming kingdom of God and instead centring their lives on catastrophic ignorance and reality-defying idiocy.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/wheaton-college-prof-to-wear-hijab-during-advent-to-show-solidarity-with-muslims-152329/
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/12/15/christian-colleges-burn-gods-word/

The Slippery Slope From Transgendered To Transracial To Trasabled To Transpecies To Transaged…Seriously!!

When you decide that reality itself can be reinterpreted based upon feelings, your society is doomed.

This is the West today.

In an eagerness to ignore God, our society is wiling to plumb any depths it seems. Pretending the universe has no creator was the beginning of believing and endorsing a whole host of stupid things from the idea that life arose spontaneously to morality being a personalised pick-and-choose buffet bar.

And just when we had been promised that the slippery slope our society has been practically falling down is actually non-existent, we have plummeted to a new level of insanity.

Michael brown offers the diagnosis:

What if I told you that there was a married man with 7 children who left his wife and kids and now lives with another family where he believes he is a 6-year-old girl? Would you say that he had serious mental and emotional issues and needed professional help?

That would be the expected reaction, but today, we must expect the unexpected. And so, we are now told that this man is both transgender and transager. Some people are even celebrating this madness.

I kid you not.

So, we have Bruce Jenner, woman of the year, the world’s most famous example of transgender identity.

We have Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who identifies as black, a prominent example of being transracial.

Then there’s Jewel Shuping, who blinded herself so her mind could be in harmony with her body. She is now a poster woman for being transabled.

There’s also Gary Matthews, aka “Boomer,” who believes he’s a dog, apparently an example of being trans-species.

And now there’s Paul Woscht, known today as Stefonkee, who “thinks he is actually a six year-old girl—not just a woman, but a six year-old girl—stuck in the body of a 50-something man.”

As reported by Ashley Rae Goldenberg, “At age 46, Wolscht deserted his wife and his seven children to live his ‘true’ life.”

As he explains, “I can’t deny I was married. I can’t deny I have children. But I’ve moved forward now and I’ve gone back to being a child. I don’t want to be an adult right now, and I just live my life like I couldn’t when I was in school.”
I wonder if his ex-wife thinks that her former husband has “moved forward”? I wonder if his children think their father has “moved forward”?

Woscht now has a new family, with, he says, an “adopted mummy and daddy who are totally comfortable with me being a little girl. And their children, and their grandchildren, are totally supportive. … We have a great time. We color, we do kids stuff. It’s called play therapy. No medication, no suicide thoughts. And I just get to play.”

This man needs serious help, not just “play therapy” that affirms his confusion. And to the extent that he willfully abandoned his family, he needs to repent and seek forgiveness.

How has the transgender community related to this latest example of what must be dubbed “transanity” (a term I have used several times before)?

One group, the Canada-based Transgender Project, made a full-length documentary about Wolscht, explaining that, “We met Stefonkee Wolscht first in the documentary Paul Wears Dresses. … Like a large percentage of the transgender population, Stefonkee Wolscht knows first hand what it’s like to be homeless, unemployed and in fear for her personal safety.”

To repeat: This poor man needs serious, professional help—either spiritual, emotional, mental or all three. It is love, not hate, that motivates me to write this, since I do not mock “Stefonkee”—I pity him.

Really now, is there no point at which transadvocates will admit that there is a problem, or that, rather than affirm someone’s perceived identify, they should question it? Is there no limit?

It’s bad enough to believe that Paul is a woman trapped in a man’s body (from all we know, this is entirely a matter of his own perception and has nothing to do with biology or chromosomes). But it’s even crazier to believe that he is a little girl trapped in a middle-aged man’s body.
Based on what empirical data? Based on what verifiable facts, rather than on his own distorted feelings? Will anyone dare argue that he actually has the brain of a little girl?

To give you an idea of how far these things go, there are academic studies on “Species Identity Disorder” (what I referred to earlier as being “trans-species”), including articles like, “Furries and the Limits of Species Identity Disorder: A Response to Gerbasi et al.,” by Fiona Probyn-Rapsey of the University of Sydney, published in 2011 by the scholarly journal Society & Animals (vol. 19).

Yes, “furries” are people who identify as animals, and as noted in the abstract to the article, “Species identity disorder is modeled on gender identity disorder, itself a highly controversial diagnosis that has been criticized for pathologizing homosexuality and transgendered people.”

I’m certainly not putting all these people into the exact same category (it seems apparent that Rachel Dolezal’s issues are very different than those of Paul Wolscht), but what’s clear is that all these people have something in common—from “Boomer” who believes he’s a dog to “Stefonkee” who believes he’s a little girl, from “Caitlyn” who believes he’s a woman to Jewel who believes she should be blind.

They all have some deep psychological issues, and, rather than celebrating them, we should pray for them as well as pray for professionals to help them find wholeness.

I’m sure Wolscht must have been deeply conflicted and troubled in order to abandon his family and live in denial of his past.

And there’s obviously something terribly tragic about the thought of a grown man wearing a dress and playing with little children all day, while his own children have lost their dad and his wife has lost her soulmate.

So, to repeat, I am not here to mock him but to pity him.

Yet I am here to expose the insanity of affirming people’s perceptions, whatever those perceptions might be.

The transgender movement is about to hit a wall called reality, and the crash will be painful indeed.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/53811-the-father-of-7-who-believes-he-s-a-6-year-old-girl

Naturalistic Evolution: Faith-Based Religion

We live in a world at ideological war.

There are thousands of religions but they all really break down into about five categories.

Evolution puts its foot down on one side of the scales, unbalancing itself to claim that all that exists is the observable, physical world and natural means of creation.

Christianity makes the claim that creation is comprised of the unseen spiritual realm (note: not corporeal or non-physical) and the observable natural realm and there is a necessary but presently diminished interaction between the two.

There is a whole lot of evidence to be found but how you interpret it determines what religion you adopt.

Consider some of the evidence against naturalistic evolution in Michael Snyder’s excellent article:

For someone that is supposedly so “brilliant”, Stephen Hawking really doesn’t have a clue. In a recent interview with Spain’s El Mundo, Hawking publicly declared that God doesn’t exist, that he is an atheist, and that science provides a better explanation of where the universe came from than the Bible does. While I certainly respect much of the great work that Hawking has done throughout the years, I don’t think that he has thought through these issues very clearly. As you will see below, it takes a ridiculous amount of blind faith to believe that the theory of evolution is true, and the cold, hard evidence clearly points to a Creator. Unfortunately, to be a respected member of the scientific establishment today one must fully embrace an evolutionary model for the origin of life, and at this point Stephen Hawking has left no doubt as to where he stands.

Somehow most of us have become convinced that it is not “intellectual” to believe that God created all things. And a big reason for this is due to the public pronouncements of big name scientists such as Hawking. The following excerpt comes from an article that was posted on cnet.com, and I was very disappointed when I first read this…

He gave an interview to Spain’s El Mundo in which he expressed his firm belief that el mundo was the work of scientifically explainable phenomena, not of a supreme being.

Hawking said: “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation.”

I’m not sure whether there was a specific moment in which science overtook the deistic explanation of existence. However, El Mundo pressed him on the suggestion in “A Brief History of Time” that a unifying theory of science would help mankind “know the mind of God.”

Hawking now explained: “What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”
He added: “Religion believes in miracles, but these aren’t compatible with science.”

In the end, Hawking can believe whatever he wants to believe, but he should at least be honest about the fact that he is making a faith choice as well.

You see, the truth is that the theory of evolution is not backed up by hard science. I will go into this much more below. In fact, when you choose to “believe” in evolution, you are doing so in spite of the evidence.

So why would anyone do this?

Why would anyone believe something as ridiculous as the theory of evolution

Well, in my experience most people believe exactly what they want to believe. And what Stephen Hawking apparently wants to believe is that there is no God and that our existence is some sort of great cosmic accident.

Recently someone asked Coach Dave Daubenmire if he “believed” in evolution, and after reflecting on that question for a while he wrote an entire article in which he shared his thoughts on the matter. The following excerpt is the part that I enjoyed the most…
Why did he ask me if I “believed” in evolution? I thought evolution was, ahem, settled science. Science, I had always been taught, was based on the scientific method and the veracity of the topic was no longer in doubt. Examples began to rumble through my head.
Why has no one ever asked me if I “believed” in gravity? Do you “believe” in darkness? Does one “believe” in grass? Do you “believe” in the wind? Does one “believe” in fire?” Of course not. Seeing is believing, they tell us. Fire proves itself. So does gravity, and wind, and grass. If macro-evolution is true, why did my friend ask me if I “believed” in it?

We are taught that it takes faith to “believe” in God, or angels, or your spouse. But the truth is; faith is required in order to ‘believe” anything. Christianity is a religion that requires faith to believe. So are Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Islam, and Santa Claus.
But evolution and climate change are religions as well. Macro-evolution is a faith-based belief system regarding the origins of the species. Global warming is a faith-based system regarding the ebb and flow of the climate. Macro-evolution and climate change are far less fact-based than a belief in Jesus.

But these days, many prominent religious leaders are caving in to the immense pressure from the scientific community to accept the theory of evolution. For example, Pope Francis has made headlines all over the globe for publicly embracing the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. The following are some of the Pope’s statements that have appeared in newspapers worldwide…
-“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so.”
-“The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.”
-“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
In 2015, most people consider the Pope to be the number one representative of the Christian faith on the entire planet, and so it is quite alarming that he is making statements such as these.
Other prominent members of the Catholic clergy are making even stronger statements.
For instance, the head of the Vatican Observatory says that a belief in young earth creationism is “almost blasphemous theology”…
As previously reported, earlier this month, Guy Consolmagno with the Vatican Observatory told Australia’s Fairfax Media that young earth creation beliefs are nearly tantamount to blasphemy.
“It’s almost blasphemous theology,” Consolmagno alleged, according to the Brisbane Times. “It’s certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what science is.”
Really?
I simply do not understand how anyone can look at the evidence and come to that sort of conclusion.
Just look at our DNA. It is a self-replicating information system that utilizes a code that is so incredibly complex that we are only just now starting to understand it a little bit. The amount of information that would be contained in just one pinhead of DNA would completely fill a stack of books that could stretch from our planet to the moon about 500 times.
So where did such a complex and remarkably efficient information system come from?

DNA is both a code and a language, and the truth is that codes and languages don’t just pop into existence out of nothing. There is always an intellect behind every code and every language.

So where did DNA come from, and who designed it?

This is just one of the exceedingly important questions that evolutionists do not have an answer for.

For those that are interested in learning more, I would like to share a list of 44 points about the creation vs. evolution debate that I included in a previous article. Unless you have really looked into these things on your own, you may have never encountered some of these points before. The next time that someone tries to convince you that evolution isn’t just a fairy tale for adults, share this list with them…

#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.

#2 When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered…

“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

#3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following…

“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

#4 Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

#5 Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”

#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none.

#7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.

#8 Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…

“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”

#9 The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it…

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.”

#10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature. The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.

#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”

#12 Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College…

“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”

#13 Anyone that believes that the theory of evolution has “scientific origins” is fooling themselves. It is actually a deeply pagan religious philosophy that can be traced back for thousands of years.

#14 Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250,000 years old should have absolutely no detectable radiocarbon in it whatsoever. But instead, we find it in everything that we dig up – even dinosaur bones. This is clear evidence that the “millions of years” theory is simply a bunch of nonsense…

It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and Journal of Creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.

In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.

#15 The odds of even a single sell “assembling itself” by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about. The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Gray’s book entitled “The Forbidden Secret“…

Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

“Now,” explained Larry, “to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!

“To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

“It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.”

#16 How did life learn to reproduce itself? This is a question that evolutionists do not have an answer for.

#17 In 2007, fishermen caught a very rare creature known as a Coelacanth. Evolutionists originally told us that this “living fossil” had gone extinct 70 million years ago. It turns out that they were only off by 70 million years.

#18 According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record about 300 million years ago. But it still exists today. So why hasn’t it evolved at all over that time frame?

#19 Darwinists believe that the human brain developed without the assistance of any designer. This is so laughable it is amazing that there are any people out there that still believe this stuff. The truth is that the human brain is amazingly complex. The following is how a PBS documentary described the complexity of the human brain: “It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.”

#20 The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity…

“Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”

#21 Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, “Piltdown Man”, turned out to be a giant hoax.

#22 If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we account for this?

#23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this?

#24 Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”

#25 Apes and humans are very different genetically. As DarwinConspiracy.com explains, “the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.”

#26 How can we explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal? No evolutionary process has ever been shown to be able to create new biological information. One scientist described the incredible amount of new information that would be required to transform microbes into men this way…

“The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).”

#27 Evolutionists would have us believe that there are nice, neat fossil layers with older fossils being found in the deepest layers and newer fossils being found in the newest layers. This simply is not true at all…

The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced (“younger” and “older” layers found in repeating sequences). “Out of place” fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.

#28 Evolutionists believe that the ancestors of birds developed hollow bones over thousands of generations so that they would eventually be light enough to fly. This makes absolutely no sense and is beyond ridiculous.

#29 If dinosaurs really are tens of millions of years old, why have scientists found dinosaur bones with soft tissue still in them? The following is from an NBC News report about one of these discoveries…

For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

#30 Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through?

#31 Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

#32 Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

#33 Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

#34 In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps need to successfully be completed. How in the world did that process possibly evolve?

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…

When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied.

#36 Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?…

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

#37 Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support life.

#38 Shells from living snails have been “carbon dated” to be 27,000 years old.

#39 If humans have been around for so long, where are all of the bones and all of the graves? The following is an excerpt from an article by Don Batten…

Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found. However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.

#40 Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were designed that does not mean that we actually were. They often speak of the “illusion of design”, but that is kind of like saying that it is an “illusion” that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed. And of course the human body is far more complex that a 747 or an iPhone.

#41 If you want to be part of the “scientific community” today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you. Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality…

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

#42 Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution…

“Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.”

#43 Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher, once made the following statement about the absurdity of the theory of evolution…

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

#44 In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from non-life, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith?

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/stephen-hawking-im-an-atheist-and-science-offers-a-more-convincing-explanation-for-the-origin-of-life

As Fascism And Communism Were To The 20th Century, So Too Are Atheistic Liberalism And Islam To the 21st

This is a great article by Matt Barber:

Mankind’s enduring “culture war” is nothing new. It first began in a garden long ago and today has reached a fever pitch worldwide. The battle lines are drawn, not so much between conservative vs. liberal, as many presume, but, rather, between biblical vs. unbiblical, truth vs. deception. In its most distilled form the culture war signifies the worldly manifestation of an otherworldy spiritual battle between good and evil.

African Cardinal Robert Sarah, a man many view as a potential future pope, recently made news by boldly drilling down into this reality. During the Vatican’s ongoing Synod of Bishops, Sarah noted that the “idolatry of Western freedom,” which he described as “atheistic secularism” (aka modern liberalism), and “Islamic fundamentalism” represent twin threats to the world, not unlike Nazism and communism. Atheistic secularism and Islam, he observed, are “almost like the Beasts of the Apocalypse.”

“What Nazism-fascism and communism were to the 20th century, Western ideologies on homosexuality and abortion and Islamic fanaticism are to today,” noted Sarah. “Certain keys allow us to discern the same demonic origin of these two movements: they both advocate a universal and totalitarian law, they’re both violently intolerant, destroyers of families and the Church, and openly anti-Christian,” he concluded.

Indeed, while there are exceptions, the “progressive” left is overwhelmingly anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and pro-Muslim. Liberals and Islamists, such as those belonging to the American-Islamic terrorist group CAIR, as well as Obama’s pals in the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, have forged a bizarre and notably incongruous sociopolitical partnership I call the “Islamo-’progressive’ axis of evil.” The only explanation for this, as far as I can tell, is best illustrated by the maxim: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

The common enemy, of course, is Christ Jesus, who is Truth.

Whereas Cardinal Sarah clearly recognizes the existence of this “demonic” Islamo-“progressive” axis, it seems, and distressingly so, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholicism’s official doctrine, does not. While, on the issues of abortion, sexual sin and natural marriage, the Catechism is deeply rooted in Scripture and, as such, taps the living waters of Truth, on the problem of Islam, it has, conversely, tapped the fiery pits of hell.

On, “The Church’s relationship with the Muslims,” the Catechism states: “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Where to begin. Rarely does one find so many mistruths packed into a single sentence.

First is the troubling assertion that, “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.” Wrong. Even the demons “believe there is one God” (James 2:19). The plan of salvation includes, exclusively, those who at once acknowledge the Creator and have faith in His only begotten Son, Christ Jesus. Says He: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

Islam expressly denies both the deity of Christ and that He is the Son of God. Any religion that denies Christ, the Messiah, as the Son of God, is a false religion. Any false religion that worships a god without the Son worships a false god – an idol of its own making.
Islam is idolatry. It is a false religion.

And Allah, a false god.

While, as the Catechism suggests, Muslims “profess to hold the faith of Abraham” and “adore the one, merciful God,” the fact remains that they do neither. The “faith of Abraham” foretold the coming of Christ, the Messiah, who is, in fact, the “one, merciful God” incarnate. Not only do Muslims deny Christ, they persecute, under flame and sword, His very body – the Christian faithful.

A central tenet of Islam is to convert, enslave or kill the infidel. An infidel is anyone who is not Muslim or, depending on who’s doing the killing, belongs to a different sect of Islam. Those who fall into that minority category tagged “moderate Muslim” are also infidels or “idolaters.” “When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” commands Surah 9:5 of the Quran. “Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.”

Islam is about control. The word itself means “submission.” It is a socio-political pseudo-religion based upon the incoherent scribblings of one man – the “prophet” Muhammad, a warring tyrant who, as even the Quran concedes, was a murderous misogynist and pedophile. This unholy book is loosely plagiarized from the Bible’s Old and New Testaments – scriptures that, by contrast, were seamlessly transcribed over centuries by roughly 40 men under the direct and divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Islam is Christianity’s photo-negative. While Christianity brings eternal life to those choosing to surrender to Jesus, who alone is “the Way, the Truth and the Life,” Islam brings eternal death to those who surrender to Allah, who is “the best of deceivers” (“[A]nd Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers.” [see Surah 3:54]).

It’s worth mentioning here that the Bible similarly calls Satan a deceiver. Revelation 12:9, for instance, explains that he “deceives the whole world.” Even though it is often claimed that Muslims, Christians and Jews “worship the same God,” nothing could be further from the truth. Allah is not God. Allah is the deceiver, and insofar as Christianity, true Christianity, spreads peace, love and truth – Islam, true Islam, spreads violence, hate and deception. Allah is definitely real. He’s just not God. Though he wanted to “ascend above the tops of the clouds” and “make [himself] like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14), Allah, most assuredly, is not God.

And so, the “best of deceivers” cares not whether we worship the idol of self, as do the secular-”progressives,” the deceiver himself, as do the Muslims, or some other false god. The deceptive one cares only that we deny God the Father, Christ His Son and the Holy Spirit, three in one.

Those who refuse will face persecution, even unto temporal death.

But those who refuse will likewise face salvation, even unto eternal Life.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/25870/islam-and-liberalism-twin-beasts-of-the-apocalypse/

Islamic Terrorism In Sydney Austalia: Police Officers Murdered And Muslim Gunman Shot Dead

Islam has been busy today.

After a terrorist attack in the US killing a number of students at an Oregon community college – an event the mainstream media has worked overtime to completely disassociate from Islam – the Religion of Peace has compelled an attack on the New South Wales Police Headquarters.

Here’s the report:

A massive police operation is under way in Parramatta in Sydney’s west after two people were shot dead outside NSW Police Force headquarters.

The operation began about 4.30pm today and police are advising people to avoid Charles Street and Hassall Street as a 2km exclusion zone has been set up.

The Daily Telegraph reports that police had warning of the attack through intelligence sources and one victim of the shooting “was a public servant working for NSW Police.”

“He was shot before (the) shooter was killed,” they report.
It is then believed “the gunman was shot by NSW Special Constables.”

The shooter, “believed to be of Middle Eastern appearance and dressed in black”, according to The Daily Telegraph, “launched an attack from the street, peppering the front of the building with bullets.”

“He shot a police IT expert before being gunned by special constables who guard the entrance,” they report.

Police said a critical incident investigation had been launched following the death of two people.

“The incident occurred outside the NSW Police headquarters building on Charles Street about 4.30pm today after a number of shots were fired,” the service said in a statement.

“It appears an officer has discharged his weapon, responding to a report that a person had been shot.

“Two people have died at the scene.” It said officers were still to establish the identity of those killed.

The attack happened close to a childcare centre used by police force families.

Goodstart Early Learning centre staff member Ashmi Golwala said she heard at least three “loud sounds”.

“They sounded like crackers and I went outside to see what was happening and a police lady told me to stay inside,” she told The Australian.

Real estate agent Edwin Almeida says he heard shots and saw a man in a black gown pacing and waving a gun outside the police headquarters.
Mr Almeida said his frightened staff ran into their office and heard three to four gun shots.

“We looked out the window, saw security guards and what appeared to be a plain clothes police officer with gun drawn and pointing at the person that was now lying on the floor surrounded by a pool of blood.”

Mr Almeida filmed part of the attack (see video above) and later described it to friends.
“There was blood everywhere … after the security and detectives fired on him,” he posted on Facebook.
“Staff being escorted to railway station by police. Great support from NSW police. These guys are bloody awesome.”

Some reports suggested the attack was a drive-by shooting, but Mr Almeida disputed this.

“This guy was not driving that’s for sure. He didn’t appear to be wanting to get away,” he said.

While Obama takes another stab at gun laws in the US (because an oppressive government that imprisons Christians for rejecting homosexuality even as they attempt to disarm them solves every national problem!), the actual threats of indoctrinating Western culture into nihilistic hedonism, along with the infiltration of Islam, go equally unacknowledged.

To clarify, we are seeing the West commit cultural suicide. 

It may not look so bad yet because the beast isn’t dead yet but in time, the very best of the historic Communist states and the current Islamic World will come together and offer us the utopia we have all been waiting for…especially with the UN ushering in their special plan of salvation.

Oh goodie!
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/parramatta-shooting-two-people-shot-outside-nsw-police-headquarters/story-e6frg6nf-1227554485095

The Long, Leftist History Of Malcolm Turnbull

Want to know what our latest Prime Minister stands for?

The one place that can tell you accurately is not the polls, nor the mainstream media, nor your friend’s and family’s opinions of the polls and the mainstream media reports, but rather simple and straightforward history.

It’s the one place most voters don’t care for – in fact, history is something that most people in general have no time for nor interest in.

Nonetheless, here is a nice, long record of Malcolm Turnbull’s political choices and actions:

http://stopturnbull.com
This one sums Turnbull up quite nicely I think:

27th November, 2009 – Turnbull’s frontbench collapses, with mass resignations, but he maintains support among the more left-leaning elements of the party.

Turnbull goes on ABC radio to launch a vicious public attack on the conservatives who have resigned. Meanwhile, the Labor party praise Turnbull for his co-operation on their Emissions Trading Scheme, with Julia Gillard saying:

“I would like to pay a tribute to Mr Turnbull. Mr Turnbull has been acting constructively, in the nation’s interests, on this matter.”

Why vote for the Turnbull-led Liberal party when you can vote for Labor?

They are essentially the same thing in terms of morality and in politics, this is really the only thing that matters.

Nonetheless, we should pray for Turnbull as the leader of our nation and ask that God might make a righteous leader out of him.

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2:1-4‬ ‭ESV‬‬
http://stopturnbull.com

Leon Trotsky: The Product Of Darwinian Evolution And Marxism

Jesus spoke about a good tree producing good fruit and Masterchef often mentions using the best ingredients to create the best dishes.

What do you get from the bad tree and from combining bad ingredients?

Barry Woolley provides us with the answers:

Leon Trotsky (1879–1940) was the organizer, propagandist, and military leader of the communist seizure of power in Russia following the revolution of 1917. He was communist dictator Lenin’s heir apparent, until Stalin usurped this position. Intolerant, tactless and impatient, Trotsky had an unbounded faith in Marxism, which was reinforced by his uncritical acceptance of Darwinism.

His fanatical faith in these ideologies and his angry intolerance of enemies saw him use the Red Army to crush the enemies of the newly formed Soviet state in the Russian Civil War of 1918–20. He instituted the militarization of civilian labour and the confiscation of food from peasants. He crushed the Ukrainian Army of Insurgent Peasants; and its anarchist guerrilla leader, Nestor Makhno (1889–1934), who had been his ally against the White Russians, was badly wounded but managed to flee the country with his family. Trotsky brutally suppressed the Soviet sailors at Kronstadt,1 and committed other acts of violence with ease, ‘because of his absolute conviction that they served the purposes of the proletariat and its permanent revolution’.2

After the end of the Russian Civil War, Trotsky’s boundless energies were channelled into handling administrative details and carrying out such pet projects as the leadership of the Society of the Godless, which was responsible for the spread of the Soviets’ antitheistic propaganda. He was an ardent atheist and advocated an “atheistic substitute” for religion; this involved the use of the theatre for antireligious propaganda, and Communistic rituals of ‘red’ baptisms, ‘red’ weddings, ‘red’ Easters, etc.3 He persecuted Christians, desecrated church property, and hated all middle-class morality.

Trotsky advocated permanent worldwide revolution4 and called for the communist seizure of power in Germany and other countries where he thought conditions were ripe for such violent actions.

How could it have come about that Trotsky, the son of a rich Jewish land-owner,5 became so vehemently prejudiced against his father’s class and against religion? It had a lot to do with his college failure and his sexual sin.

At the age of 17, Trotsky dropped out of college to join a revolutionary commune. The only Marxist member of this group was a woman, some six years his senior, named Alexandra Lvovna Sokolovskaya. At first, he was ferociously antagonistic to both Alexandra and her Marxist views, so much so that at a New Year’s Eve party in 1896 he proposed a toast with the words, “A curse on all Marxists, and on all those who want to bring hardness and dryness into all life’s relationships!”6

However, he then began an affair with her, which caused him to reconsider her Marxism. After the commune’s activities landed its members in the Tsar’s prisons,7 Trotsky had ample time to develop his ideologies.

In prison in Odessa, Trotsky read Darwin’s Origin of Species and his Autobiography. Years later he wrote, “Darwin destroyed the last of my ideological prejudices. … In the Odessa prison I felt something like hard scientific ground under my feet. Facts began to establish themselves in a certain system. The idea of evolution and determinism—that is, the idea of a gradual development conditioned by the character of the material world—took possession of me completely.

Trotsky advocated permanent worldwide revolution and called for the communist seizure of power in Germany and other countries.

“Darwin stood for me like a mighty doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe. I was intoxicated with his minute, precise, conscientious and at the same time powerful, thought. I was the more astonished when I read … that he had preserved his belief in God.8 I absolutely declined to understand how a theory of the origin of species by way of natural selection and sexual selection and a belief in God could find room in one and the same head.”9

The details would be filled in later, but in the age of great scientists like James Clerk Maxwell and Louis Pasteur, who were Christian creationists, Trotsky took up the faith of Marx and Darwin. The conversion experience was genuine and thorough. Its legacy would be written in the torrents of blood that flowed under his hand.

In 1940, Trotsky, while living in exile in Mexico, was assassinated on the orders of Josef Stalin, another who was converted to an atheistic view of life through reading Darwin. Stalin was perhaps history’s greatest mass murderer. He and Trotsky acted in a way that was quite consistent with their presuppositions: if no one made me, no one owns me, and there is no absolute right or wrong. In such an evolution-based worldview, there is nothing intrinsically ‘wrong’ with murdering people, even millions of them.

http://creation.com/darwin-trotsky-connection

The Atheist Faith In Aliens

The difference between me now and the atheist me of yesteryear is that Jesus encountered me in power and demonstrated to me everything that the scriptures claim about him, shattering my confidence trust in naturalism.

Did the aliens do that? Never so much.

I can certainly relate to the idea of hoping to discover alien life though, as many atheists do. It’s a convenient way to dismiss God and it at least does fit with the naturalist worldview, even though it’s a worldview that can find a real foundation because of perky things like the Law of Biogenesis.

Nonetheless, I too once hung on every reported word of the endless discoveries of “earth-like planets” where we might discover life.

As usual, there has been a lot of stories recently about Kepler-452b, the latest in a long line of “earth-like” planets that has drawn the devoted longing of anyone whose hope is in intelligent life beyond earth.

Gary DeMar sets it straight on the atheist’s desperate and very blind faith in the existence of E.T.;

A planet orbiting distant star Kepler-452 has been identified by the Kepler space telescope. Here’s what one atheist said about the discovery:

“The discovery of Kepler-452b is not likely to see the public swoon with a collective rendition of Kumbaya. But this Earth 2.0 is a huge if under-appreciated discovery, not because Kepler-452b is unique but for just the opposite reason; there are likely thousands or millions or even billions of such earth-like planets in the universe. The discovery of just one such world is good evidence for many more: after all, we know of 100 billion galaxies each with as many as 300 billion stars (big variation per galaxy). Astronomers estimate that there are about 70 billion trillion stars. Math wizardry is not necessary to conclude we did not by chance find the only other possibly habitable planet among that huge population of stars.

“With this discovery, we come ever closer to the idea that life is common in the universe.”

And from this Dr. Jeff Schweitzer speculates that with so many earth-like planets in the cosmos, statistical analysis almost assures us that life like ours has evolved on many of these planets.

Since the Bible does not refer to such life on other worlds, Dr. Schweitzer infers that the Bible must be wrong about the origin of life. I’m simplifying his argument, but that’s pretty much what he’s claiming. I’ll leave it to others to debate whether life can exist on other planets and the Bible still be true (see here, here, and here). So far we don’t have any empirical evidence that earth-like life exists anywhere else in the cosmos.

There’s a great deal we don’t know about the cosmos and much that has not been revealed to us: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29).

C.S. Lewis speculated on extraterrestrial life in his science fiction trilogy: Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength. In one of his final interviews in 1963, the year of his death, Lewis had this to say when asked about “widespread travel in space”:

“I look forward with horror to contact with the other inhabited planets, if there are such. We would only transport to them all of our sin and our acquisitiveness [excessive interest], and establish a new colonialism. I can’t bear to think of it. But if we on earth were to get right with God, of course, all would be changed. Once we find ourselves spiritually awakened, we can go to outer space and take the good things with us. That is quite a different matter.”

There are a number of problems with the way Dr. Schweitzer formulates his argument. His first problem is with the science regarding the origin of life on earth. Science is science no matter how many suns and planets there are. Dr. Schweitzer assumes that life spontaneously arose and evolved on earth. Given what we know about chemistry and biology, such an evolutionary premise is impossible. Life does not generate from non-life.

There is no science to support spontaneous generation.

Small changes in existing species has never been questioned or doubted. A fly is a fly, a horse is a horse, a dog is a dog, a finch is a finch.

Dr. James. M. Tour, who is a synthetic organic chemist, specializing in nanotechnology, writes:

“From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution. . . . Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat. Until then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered. And I have not even addressed origin of first life issues. For me, that is even more scientifically mysterious than evolution.”

If the origin of life can’t be explained in an evolutionary way on earth, what does this say about finding life on Kepler-452b?

There’s one more thing to consider. Dr. Schweitzer is formulating his thesis based on an image of a planet that is 1,400 light-years away from earth. It would take 1400 years to reach the planet traveling at the speed of light – 186,000 miles per second. At the speed of the New Horizons spacecraft that travels at 37,000 mph, it would take approximately 26 million years to get there.

He has no idea what this or any distant planet is like. How convenient to appeal to so far away that no one will ever be able to test his hypothesis about the origin of the cosmos, the origin of life, and the existence of God.

His first simple task is to prove that life can self-generate from non-life and that spark of life evolved into the complex menagerie of life we see on earth. That has never been done, and it will never be done, because it can’t be done.

Interestingly, angels would count as intelligent life beyond earth, not to mention the living creatures described in The Book of The Revelation, so I guess we are all believers in extraterrestrials.